I believe the Bible is the Word of God and to this day I have seen no true facts proving anything in the Bible to be false.
I think the thing is, there's differing degrees of truth. Is the bible an accurate historical narrative? Not really. Does it have to be?
Shakespeare's
Romeo and Juliet doesn't have to be a literal account to express a truth about lovers and society. That it rings true in a lot of ways is a testament to Shakespeare as a writer. Picasso called art "a lie that tells us the truth". Couldn't the bible be the same thing?
I would point to a great deal of language in the bible (certain "mystic" numbers, repetition of phrases, etc) that, in other contemporary literature, is used in situations where the story may not be true, but the moral is. (For instance, fairy tales.)
Even today we use that language. If I tell you what my dad calls a "no-sh*t story", typified by the introductory token "Now, this is no sh*t!" you know that the story is of course, sh*t - a total fabrication. Nonetheless these stories are told to impart truths.
The bible has a lot of things wrong on the face of it. Four-legged insects. A canopy over the earth like a tent. Striped reeds causing spotted sheep. I don't think that calls into question the lessons of the bible no more than it would when Jesus teaches the parable of the Good Samaritan, even though the story he tells probably didn't actually happen.
Things can be mythically true, in that sense. The bible joins a lot of other great literature in using lies to tell us the truth.